[ppml] 2005-1 status

> So, I
> > don't undestand why you think the entire McD business could not
justify a
> > need for more then a /47.
>> With 31,000 sites today and ~2% annual growth, I don't see how they
could
> justify asking for more than a /47 unless they had a legit use for more
than
> three /64s per restaurant. They could even fit into a /48 without
> difficulty if they only needed one per restaurant (which is what I'd
> expect).
I don't understand this analysis. First of all, in the USA McDonalds
has only 12,300 locations. Secondly, according to the existing IPv6
policy, if McDonalds were to go to an ISP and ask for IPv6 connectivity
for their network of 12,300 restaurants, the ISP would assign them 12,300
/48 address blocks. That is the policy and if you don't understand why
each location qualifies for a /48 then you need to do some study on the
fundamentals of IPv6 addressing.
> Still, quibbling over /47 vs /44 is a distraction. I haven't heard
anyone
> say that a /32 would be reasonable for an end site under any conditions.
We are not discussing end sites here. We are discussing end users, in
other words organizations which may have one or many end sites in their
network.
> I
> have trouble conceiving any org on earth that has a real need for _over
> eight billion_ internal subnets, hence my original argument with the
Kevin's
> draft proposal that would have given us such a policy. It's since been
> improved.
When you say "internal subnets" are you referring to /64 blocks? If so,
then
this is irrelevant to the discussion. /64s are only counted in the very
unusual
circumstance where an end site needs only a single IPv6 subnetwork. This
is
unlikely to occur outside of industrial applications.
--Michael Dillon